Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org web.archive.org
By switching to a climate-conscious bank, you could reduce those emissions by about 75 percent, the study found. In fact, if you moved $8,000 dollars—the median balance for US customers—the reduction in your indirect emissions would be twice that of the direct emissions you’d avoid if you switched to a vegetarian diet.
The big one in the US is Amalgamated Bank. Others are listed here
Here is the analysis:
https://drawdown.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Saving for the Planet_Drawdown Labs Report.pdf
According to a new analysis, for every $1,000 dollars the average American keeps in savings, each year they indirectly create emissions equivalent to flying from New York to Seattle.
That is 235.10 kg CO2.
https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx
https://applications.icao.int/icec/Methodology ICAO Carbon Calculator_v11.1-2018.pdf
On page 8 there is a claim that switching to an EV reduces CO₂ emissions, but they probably don’t realize that the old car just gets shipped to Africa where it continues emitting indefinitely.
if you moved $8,000 dollars—the median balance for US customers
What the fuck? Who has $8,000 just sitting in their investment…oh…out those in the U.S. population with investment accounts…the average is $8k. I thought that was the average of people in the U.S.
God damn it.
Yeah, half the US population has less than $500 above what’s needed for immediate expenses.
the average is $8k.
It is the median.
Cool. I didn’t even know that some of these banks were “green.”
Of course it’s important to keep in mind the most green is probably to not bank at all – something I’m experimenting with myself. Then the only notable GHG would be from the armored cars.
From this page:
[T]he average U.S.-based adult with a bank account can reduce their estimated annual banking footprint by 76% by moving their money from the average carbon-intensive bank to the average climate-responsible bank.
The article mentions “green” banks that don’t do this, but then fails to list any trustworthy examples.
That’s why I provided an example and a link
That would be a great link to post in !climate_action_individual@slrpnk.net
Gracias. I misunderstood what the link was.
Note these banks to avoid examples.
The big one in the US is Amalgamated Bank. Others are listed here
It’s useful to cross-reference that list with the bad list. Amalgamated welcomes Tor users onto its sales website but if you register for an account and try to login you will be blocked.
That bank.green site may give a good starting point for short-listing, but it’s important to do further investigation. Note for example:
- Beneficial State Bank (BSB) writes car loans even for city dwellers. WTF? Yeah, not green.
- BSB also uses Cloudflare, which pushes graphical CAPTCHAs thus has an excessive CO₂ footprint.
- BSB also uses FedEx (the worst courier for the environment).
- BSB forces customers to get their app from Google playstore (Google, who helps Total oil company find places to dig).
- BSB uses a variety of Microsoft products & services (linkedin, email) and MS is obviously quite bad for the environment (e.g. partnership with Chevron).
US banking rules are tough to comply with if you don’t know your customer. Tor makes that hard.
US banking rules are tough to comply with if you don’t know your customer. Tor makes that hard.
This is covered by 31 C.F.R. § 103.121, which requires:
- name
- date of birth
- residential address
- identification number (SSN for natural US persons)
That’s it. They don’t need your IP address and they do not need to track your realtime whereabouts. That may sound baffling because banks often demand much more info than that. The Patriot Act tells banks they can collect more information for KYC purposes. This ensures that customers cannot sue their banks for data over-collection. So when the bank says “we need to know where you work, how much you earn, what your profession is, etc, because ‘Patriot Act’…”. They’re being sneaky and misleading. They do not have to collect all that info, but they can, if they want. And they often want excessive amounts of info because it’s profitable. Since there is no GDPR in the US, banks can misrepresent the purpose of data collection. They can say “we collect that info for KYC/Patriot Act” when they actually just want to feed their market research.
Some banks allow Tor logins thus demonstrating that it’s legally compliant.
In practice, the banks are a lot more picky than that, and reject customers without that additional data or with a lot of cash transactions.
It is indeed useful when that rejection gives a built-in way of moving your business to another bank that’s less reckless with excessive data collection.
But it does not always work out that way. I refused to answer a needless intrusive interrogation and it had no effect (which also proves the interrogation was not necessary). The bank likely made a note of my refusal… perhaps to try to use against me. They really want you to believe you’re required to answer those questions. In any case, it obviously makes sense to avoid the banks that show signs of over-collection because it hints that there could be more excessive collections going on with that bank. E.g. when you call the bank, some banks will initiate a spontaneous interrogation unrelated to the reason for your call.
There are countless ethical reasons to do as many transactions in cash as possible. If a bank were to show me the door for doing too many withdrawals, then it would actually be a feature. You don’t want your money in a bank who is protectionist against runs on the bank. It’s better to bank where your money is not trapped.
Wow, that’s an easy win we can each put up. Thanks for the share, going to look into this.
you mean like when i fill up my car, yeah, we know
Like when you have money in the bank or a mutual fund.
